Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claim
The following Office Action is in response to communications filed on 19 of September 2025.
Claims 1-17, 19-24, 26, and 30-32 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
To properly respond to grounds of rejection set forth in a prior Office Action, a “reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action.” 37 CFR 1.111(b). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is patentable is not sufficient. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). Thus, Applicant’s request is not persuasive because the request does not provide arguments specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is patentable. Further, the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the reason set forth in the rejection below.
The examiner notes that no amendments were filed along with the RCE, and that dependent claim 29 was deemed eligible under 101 in the last Office Action dated 03/19/2025 and if incorporated into the independent claims, it will render the claims in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17, 19-24, 26, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
At Step 1 the claims fall under one of the four statutory categories. The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “receiving, by a processing system having one or more processors, an organizational definition of an industrial plant operation, wherein the organizational definition defines a set of roles within the industrial plant operation; generating, by the processing system, an organizational digital twin of the industrial plant operation based on the organizational definition, wherein the organizational digital twin is a digital representation of an organizational structure of the industrial plant operation: determining, by the processing system, a set of relationships between different roles within the set of roles based on the organizational definition; determining, by the processing system, a set of settings for a role from the set of roles based on the set of relationships; linking an identity of an individual to the role; determining by the processing system, a real-world-element digital twin for at least one real-world-element associated with the industrial plant operation, wherein the determining is based on a scan resolution with which the at least one real-world element is scanned; determining, by the processing system, a granularity level of at least one data item associated with the real-world-element digital twin, wherein the granularity level indicates a level of detail at which the at least one data item associated with the real-world-element digital twin is to be presented, and the granularity level is determined based on the role and the scan resolution with which the at least one real-world element is scanned; generating, by the processing system, a role-based digital twin having a presentation layer, wherein a configuration of the presentation layer is based on the role and the set of settings, wherein the configuration of the presentation layer defines a set of states that is depicted in the role-based digital twin associated with the role, and wherein the configuration includes a presentation of the at least one data item at the granularity level: determining, by the processing system, a set of data sources that provide data corresponding to the set of states, wherein each data source of the set of data sources provides at least a portion of the at least one data item; configuring, by the processing system, one or more data structures that are received from the set of data sources, wherein the one or more data structures are configured to provide data used to populate one or more of the set of states in the role-based digital twin; providing, by the processing system, an interface to allow the individual to interact with the role-based digital twin according to the configuration of the presentation layer”. Claim 32 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 32 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-17, 19-24, 26, and 29-31 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 32 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, Claims 1 and 32 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element directed at receiving data (italicized above) reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, Claims 1 and 32 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶702 “In embodiments of the present disclosure, a method is provided for configuring role-based digital twins, comprising: receiving, by a processing system having one or more processors, an organizational definition of an industrial plant operation, wherein the organizational definition defines a set of roles within the industrial plant operation; generating, by the processing system, an organizational digital twin of the industrial plant operation based on the organizational definition, wherein the organizational digital twin is a digital representation of an organizational structure of the industrial plant operation; determining, by the processing system, a set of relationships between different roles within the set of roles based on the organizational definition; determining, by the processing system, a set of settings for a role from the set of roles based on the determined set of relationships; linking an identity of a respective individual to the role; determining, by the processing system, a configuration of a presentation layer of a role-based digital twin corresponding to the role based on the settings of the role that is linked to the identity”.
As a result, claims 1 and 32 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Further, additional elements for transmitting and storing data (italicized above) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional data retrieval and transmission functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, additional elements for receiving data does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional data retrieval and transmission functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 2-17, 19-24, 26, 30, and 31 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 04/17/2026
Prosecution Insights